T Nation

Fermi Scientist: 'We Live in a Hologram'

"According to Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia, Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein described and instead dissolves into “grains”, just as a newspaper photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. “It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time,” says Hogan.

If this doesn’t blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed director of Fermilab’s Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger shock in store: “If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are all living in a giant cosmic hologram.”

Even though my IQ increased by 120 just by reading that, what exactly would it mean to live in a holographic universe as opposed to other theories?

[quote]shoo wrote:
Even though my IQ increased by 120 just by reading that, what exactly would it mean to live in a holographic universe as opposed to other theories?[/quote]

It means that it is only really there if you are looking at it.

[quote]shoo wrote:
Even though my IQ increased by 120 just by reading that, what exactly would it mean to live in a holographic universe as opposed to other theories?[/quote]

It means you can eat carbs now.

[quote]shoo wrote:
Even though my IQ increased by 120 just by reading that, what exactly would it mean to live in a holographic universe as opposed to other theories?[/quote]

It means that physical objects may be a manifestation of thought. Instead of space-time, it may be that the structure is: space-time-consciousness. Therefore, existence cannot exist without consciousness.

This belies western traditions in philosophy of subject-object and that the objects we perceive (including ourselves) don’t exist without the existence of our consciousness.

Bishop Berkeley was right. Maybe… ;>

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
shoo wrote:
Even though my IQ increased by 120 just by reading that, what exactly would it mean to live in a holographic universe as opposed to other theories?

It means you can eat carbs now.[/quote]

I LOL’d

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
shoo wrote:
Even though my IQ increased by 120 just by reading that, what exactly would it mean to live in a holographic universe as opposed to other theories?

It means that physical objects may be a manifestation of thought. Instead of space-time, it may be that the structure is: space-time-consciousness. Therefore, existence cannot exist without consciousness.

This belies western traditions in philosophy of subject-object and that the objects we perceive (including ourselves) don’t exist without the existence of our consciousness.

Bishop Berkeley was right. Maybe… ;>

[/quote]

What the fuck does “existence cannot exist” mean?

Further, would thought require a physical entity(brain) to take place in the first place? And yet such a physical entity would not exist without thought? Seems circular on its face.

Wouldn’t this relate to Christopher Langan’s “cognitive-theoretic” model of the universe?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
shoo wrote:
Even though my IQ increased by 120 just by reading that, what exactly would it mean to live in a holographic universe as opposed to other theories?

It means that physical objects may be a manifestation of thought. Instead of space-time, it may be that the structure is: space-time-consciousness. Therefore, existence cannot exist without consciousness.

This belies western traditions in philosophy of subject-object and that the objects we perceive (including ourselves) don’t exist without the existence of our consciousness.

Bishop Berkeley was right. Maybe… ;>

[/quote]

So the universe exists because we think. Then, because we are a product of our universe, we were created out of nothing, thinking and thus creating the very universe we originate from? It just sounds like a giant mindfuck to me. So either we created the world (awesome), there’s some bigass alien outdating the very universe (awesome) or I’m just too dumb to get it (less awesome).

Can I just make it simple,
we used to believe that reality existed and our consciousness within that, but now quantum physics states… like that article states, that it’s that our consciousness exists and reality within that, our perception is what exists. since we’re on T-Nation (I’ll try and remain on the subject of strength), next time you lift heavy try and percieve the weight as light than it is, or try percieving yourself as stronger.

It means Anaconda is just around the corner. Really, guys. Really.

Only mildly related but still excellent.

[quote]RickyRick wrote:
Can I just make it simple,
we used to believe that reality existed and our consciousness within that, but now quantum physics states… like that article states, that it’s that our consciousness exists and reality within that, our perception is what exists. since we’re on T-Nation (I’ll try and remain on the subject of strength), next time you lift heavy try and percieve the weight as light than it is, or try percieving yourself as stronger.[/quote]

If we step one more step on the stupid stair, would you say there is a reality, our consciousness and our perception of reality or just consciousness and a perception?

but then, if the perception thing is true then, we wouldn’t see what others do. and everyone does see that tree on the corner of the neighberhood, but then, the only people who seem to see ghosts are the ones who believe in them, though, the fluctuations of energy can be measured, in supposedly haunted areas, I guess proving that something is there.

well It is all theory… but then in theory it’s all true!

[quote]shoo wrote:
If we step one more step on the stupid stair, would you say there is a reality, our consciousness and our perception of reality or just consciousness and a perception?[/quote]

The stupid stair? I like that… Understand that this is theory, and theory I don’t really believe, but it is interesting and my minimal(very minimal)understanding of the theory is that it is our consciousness that exists and reality within that, our perception is how we see things.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
shoo wrote:
Even though my IQ increased by 120 just by reading that, what exactly would it mean to live in a holographic universe as opposed to other theories?

It means that physical objects may be a manifestation of thought. Instead of space-time, it may be that the structure is: space-time-consciousness. Therefore, existence cannot exist without consciousness.

This belies western traditions in philosophy of subject-object and that the objects we perceive (including ourselves) don’t exist without the existence of our consciousness.

Bishop Berkeley was right. Maybe… ;>

[/quote]

No, it doesn’t. Nothing in that article related anything of the sort.

How come every time some physicists write a paper on cosmology some flakes come out and give it a whole bunch of metaphysical new age flim-flam?

Edit: To remove portions of a diatribe on ontology. I’ll just summarize that it doesn’t “mean” anything. Living on a world that people thought was flat is very much the same as living on a world that is round and surrounded by crystal spherical shells and as it is now as we know it, a big rock hurtling through space. That is, assuming reality exists outside of our own perception, which is really a futile assertion because it means I’m typing this for no one but myself.

It’s just like how mountain heights change depending on what geoid the surveyors are using, but the mountain is a certain, real height at any point in time. Our quantification changes our perception but our perception doesn’t change the actual quantity.

^ I’m glad I’m not the only one put off by the responses in this thread. Where the hell did you guys get that crap?

All this means is that information is being projected from a 2-D surface into 3-D space. Everything is still happening on that surface–the physics is all the same. It has nothing to do with perception.

conorh and wfifer,

Thanks for trying to keep the thread “grounded.” The holographic nature of the universe–that data is the key facet of reality, and that the data needed to encode reality only requires 2 dimensions, meaning that the 3 dimensions that we perceive are a “projection” based on that 2D data–was laid out years ago.

I can’t claim to grok it accurately.

[quote]TShaw wrote:
conorh and wfifer,

Thanks for trying to keep the thread “grounded.” The holographic nature of the universe–that data is the key facet of reality, and that the data needed to encode reality only requires 2 dimensions, meaning that the 3 dimensions that we perceive are a “projection” based on that 2D data–was laid out years ago.

I can’t claim to grok it accurately.[/quote]

But did it have any proof then?

The interference at the level the instrument observes could support the hologram argument.

[quote]TShaw wrote:
conorh and wfifer,

Thanks for trying to keep the thread “grounded.” The holographic nature of the universe–that data is the key facet of reality, and that the data needed to encode reality only requires 2 dimensions, meaning that the 3 dimensions that we perceive are a “projection” based on that 2D data–was laid out years ago.

I can’t claim to grok it accurately.[/quote]

I do what I can. I sat in an upper division math course a couple semesters ago and they were talking about projecting sets into n-spaces and I just kind of “spaced” out, if you’ll forgive the pun. A lot of the modern physics stuff is hard to understand, even conceptually. But I digress…